October 20, 2006
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:47:40 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>> Of couse, I'd be honoured! :)
>
> Ok!
>
>> PS. I don't like the way the longer lines of code exceed the code-box. I had the same thing and fixed it using 'margin' instead of 'width' in the style sheet. Might work?
>
> I think it looks fine.

Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png
October 20, 2006
Chris Miller wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:47:40 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
> 
>> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>>> Of couse, I'd be honoured! :)
>>
>> Ok!
>>
>>> PS. I don't like the way the longer lines of code exceed the code-box. I had the same thing and fixed it using 'margin' instead of 'width' in the style sheet. Might work?
>>
>> I think it looks fine.
> 
> Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png

Yowsa! I guess that's the problem with style sheets. They aren't portable. (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
October 20, 2006
On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 03:12:44 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:

> Chris Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:47:40 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>>>> Of couse, I'd be honoured! :)
>>>
>>> Ok!
>>>
>>>> PS. I don't like the way the longer lines of code exceed the code-box. I had the same thing and fixed it using 'margin' instead of 'width' in the style sheet. Might work?
>>>
>>> I think it looks fine.
>>  Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png
>
> Yowsa! I guess that's the problem with style sheets. They aren't portable. (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)

Opera.
October 20, 2006
Chris Miller wrote:
>>(It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
> Opera.

I tried it in Mozilla, it looks different from both IE and Opera.
October 20, 2006
Chris Miller wrote:
> Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png

That's how it looks in FireFox as well.

L.
October 20, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Chris Miller wrote:
>>> (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
>> Opera.
> 
> I tried it in Mozilla, it looks different from both IE and Opera.

You, sir, must not be a web programmer. :-D
October 20, 2006
Kyle Furlong wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Chris Miller wrote:
>>>> (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
>>> Opera.
>>
>> I tried it in Mozilla, it looks different from both IE and Opera.
> 
> You, sir, must not be a web programmer. :-D

Uh-oh, he's on to me!
October 20, 2006
Actually, they are portable... but what you're doing is technically incorrect.  I had thought it was intentional.

You set a width for the box, and so the standards-compliant browsers listen to you and do as you say.  You don't set overflow, so it's defaulted to visible.  Thus what you see in the screenshot.

Internet Explorer is completely ignoring the standards (what the CSS property "width" is supposed to do) and treating it as a minimum width.

Normally, you'd set min-width instead to get the effect that Internet Explorer is giving you... but IE does not support min-width.  Hence probably why Internet Explorer behaves this way.

A lot of people use something like this for that:

min-width: 600px;
width: expression("600px"); /* This line only understood by IE. */

However, Internet Explorer 7 (coming out _very_ soon, final already available for download) will comply with the standards (when the document has a proper DOCTYPE, which yours does) and thus the above will break it.

I would suggest that it wouldn't be too bad to simply have:

min-width: 600px;

Because, this will mean that Internet Explorer 6 and below will simply show the box at whatever width, including smaller than 600px... but every other browser will work as you wish.

-[Unknown]


> Chris Miller wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Oct 2006 02:47:40 -0400, Walter Bright <newshound@digitalmars.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Lionello Lunesu wrote:
>>>> Of couse, I'd be honoured! :)
>>>
>>> Ok!
>>>
>>>> PS. I don't like the way the longer lines of code exceed the code-box. I had the same thing and fixed it using 'margin' instead of 'width' in the style sheet. Might work?
>>>
>>> I think it looks fine.
>>
>> Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png
> 
> Yowsa! I guess that's the problem with style sheets. They aren't portable. (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
October 20, 2006
Walter Bright wrote:
> Chris Miller wrote:
> 
>> Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png
> 
> 
> Yowsa! I guess that's the problem with style sheets. They aren't portable. (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)

The same overflow problem exists in many of the D languages pages, too.
  e.g. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template.html

If I switch to a small enough default font it looks ok, though.
(I use FireFox.)

--bb
October 20, 2006
Bill Baxter wrote:
> Walter Bright wrote:
>> Chris Miller wrote:
>>
>>> Looks pretty bad to me, http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/5238/t4h8t4g3ev7.png
>>
>>
>> Yowsa! I guess that's the problem with style sheets. They aren't portable. (It looks fine in Explorer, what are you using?)
> 
> The same overflow problem exists in many of the D languages pages, too.
>   e.g. http://www.digitalmars.com/d/template.html

I wouldn't be surprised at all at that, since they all use the same style sheet, and all are generated with Ddoc macros.
1 2 3 4 5
Top | Discussion index | About this forum | D home